I didn't see anything substaintiating the claim that the insurance company was established by the Union? (But if it's true this could be a major piece of the puzzle... but then again, it would leave us with a new question: why didn't the governor just say he was going to stop the money being dumped into a Union established insurance company because of conflict of interests).
Secondly, once you find an insurance company you like and trust then you are willing to pay a few more dollars for their service. Maybe it's that case with the teachers?
Does the governor have the power to stop the money going to the union ins. company?
From what I understood, though I might be wrong, the teachers have no choice in what insurance company they use.
Does the governor have the power to stop the money going to the union ins. company?
From what I understood, though I might be wrong, the teachers have no choice in what insurance company they use.
I don't think you understood my post. What I was saying was that IF the governor was trying to limit collective bargaining to stop the union insurance company then why didn't he just say that was his plan?
The teachers have no choice on their insurance company? I think they have more of a choice on that as a union than they do as individuals who are forced to sit back and watch as the government chooses the cheapest bidder regardless of the how good the insurance actually is.
__________________
You better watch out before I blitzkrieg your thread cause I'm the Thread Nazi now!
I don't think you understood my post. What I was saying was that IF the governor was trying to limit collective bargaining to stop the union insurance company then why didn't he just say that was his plan?
He did say that. I heard him being interviewed on several occasions saying so.
Quote:
The teachers have no choice on their insurance company? I think they have more of a choice on that as a union than they do as individuals who are forced to sit back and watch as the government chooses the cheapest bidder regardless of the how good the insurance actually is.
Well, I think the point is the insurance costs are too high for the taxpayers to bear. I have no idea how good the coverage is on what they have now, but this is what the governor has to say on his website:
On top of these savings reforming collective bargaining would allow governments to realize additional savings. For example, currently many school districts participate in WEA trust because WEAC collectively bargains to get as many school districts across the state to participate in this union run health insurance plan as possible. Union leadership benefits from members participating in this plan. If school districts enrolled in the state employee health plan, it would save school districts up to $68 million per year.
Governor Chris Christie comes out in support for collective bargaining for state employees:
Gov. Chris Christie says he has “love” for the collective bargaining process, even as other Republican governors are pushing to limit or end the negotiation process with public unions in their states.
“I love collective bargaining,” the New Jersey Republican said at a town hall meeting in Hillsborough, N.J., on Wednesday.
The Garden State, he said, is very different from Wisconsin, where Gov. Scott Walker and the Republicans in the state legislature have been in a standoff with unions and state Democrats for more than two weeks.
Though Christie’s relationship with state unions — especially the New Jersey Education Association — has in the past been icy, the governor indicated Wednesday that he is ready to work with them.
“Let me at them,” he said, The Associated Press reported. “Get me out of the cage and let me go.” A Christie spokesman said his administration has reached out to all the state’s major unions to schedule initial meetings with them.
If anything, Christie said, he’d like to see collective bargaining become a bigger part of how the state negotiates pay and benefits for its employees. “I’ve said let’s get rid of civil service and let everything be collectively bargained, as long as collective bargaining is fair, tough, adversarial and there’s someone in that room representing you,” he said.
He did say that. I heard him being interviewed on several occasions saying so.
Thanks for bringing this to light! (This comment has nothing to do with you but I wonder why no other republican on this thread brought that up??????)
Quote:
Well, I think the point is the insurance costs are too high for the taxpayers to bear. I have no idea how good the coverage is on what they have now, but this is what the governor has to say on his website:
On top of these savings reforming collective bargaining would allow governments to realize additional savings. For example, currently many school districts participate in WEA trust because WEAC collectively bargains to get as many school districts across the state to participate in this union run health insurance plan as possible. Union leadership benefits from members participating in this plan. If school districts enrolled in the state employee health plan, it would save school districts up to $68 million per year.
The issue isn't less compensation. The issue is limiting collective bargaining. If you want to convince me on that issue then you are going to have to do more than talk about WI not having enough money and wanting to lower compensation of the teachers. Why won't you be able to convince me with that? Because lowering compensation and limiting collective bargaining are two totally different things. Sure limiting collective bargaining would also lower compensation, but compensation can be lowered without putting limits on collective bargaining. So it seems to me there must be something more to wanting to limit collective bargaining and you even had some insight as to what that was. So let's not backtrack and talk about the governor wanting to lower compensation because those kind of remarks are never going to convince me that WI needs to limit collective bargaining. Instead let's press on and talk about that insight of yours. The insight that the governor apparently has some reason for believing union leaders are benefiting from that insurance being pushed for. I want to know how they are benefiting. Do you know?
__________________
You better watch out before I blitzkrieg your thread cause I'm the Thread Nazi now!
Thanks for bringing this to light! (This comment has nothing to do with you but I wonder why no other republican on this thread brought that up??????)
The issue isn't less compensation. The issue is limiting collective bargaining. If you want to convince me on that issue then you are going to have to do more than talk about WI not having enough money and wanting to lower compensation of the teachers. Why won't you be able to convince me with that? Because lowering compensation and limiting collective bargaining are two totally different things. Sure limiting collective bargaining would also lower compensation, but compensation can be lowered without putting limits on collective bargaining. So it seems to me there must be something more to wanting to limit collective bargaining and you even had some insight as to what that was. So let's not backtrack and talk about the governor wanting to lower compensation because those kind of remarks are never going to convince me that WI needs to limit collective bargaining. Instead let's press on and talk about that insight of yours. The insight that the governor apparently has some reason for believing union leaders are benefiting from that insurance being pushed for. I want to know how they are benefiting. Do you know?
I think because bargaining sometimes turns into "demanding". Teachers are forced to pay union dues whether they want to or not. This directly affects the democratic party, who gets a lot of funds from the unions.
__________________
Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the people doing it. ~Chinese Proverb
When I was young and clever, I wanted to change the world. Now that I am older and wiser, I strive to change myself. ~
Linear Mode
